Add device

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the DEVC-001/003/004 rule references pointing to bulc_knowledge_search, which hints at validation constraints — modest but real value. It does not state whether the call mutates existing devices, error behavior, or the non-idempotent nature beyond what annotations declare.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of supported domains and one actionable geometry-selection rule. The trailing bulc rule-pointer is terse and useful. The opening sentence is dense but not redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 37-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing cross-cutting guidance (geometry parameter choice) and points to validation rules. Return values need not be explained without an output schema; remaining gaps (mutation semantics, error cases) are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 37 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating cross-parameter selection rules (xyz for point quantities vs xb for flow/HRR/layer/beam/statistics), which is genuinely useful guidance an agent could not derive from per-field descriptions alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('measurement device (&DEVC)') and enumerates the domains it covers (point/region quantities, species, statistics, trip options, post-processing, aspiration, HVAC, particles). It is clearly a device-creation tool, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as add_heat_detector, add_smoke_detector, or add_thermocouple.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Provide xyz for point quantities or xb for flow/HRR/layer/beam/statistics' gives conditional guidance on which geometry parameter to supply. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the specialized sibling adders (detectors, thermocouples) and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving tool selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.